Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Elizabeth Fama's avatar

Unfortunately, in the real world we can't have both the best care and equal care for everyone because of scarcity of resources. There's also the issue of who is paying. Adam's scenario of the homeless man and the woman whose name is on the hospital brings this into focus. She has health insurance for her care *and* she pays taxes that support medicaid. She also happens to have provided the capital for the hospital building the homeless man is receiving care in. She probably owns a BMW, but I don't think anyone would argue we should give the homeless man a car. If we did, would it be a BMW, or a Nissan Versa? There is no escaping two facts: healthcare comes in varying quality levels, and someone has to pay for it. Pushing for "equal care" without having complex conversations about the entire healthcare market will result in "bad quality care for everyone," even if conservative medicine (not VIP excess) is what we define as "good quality." [I think these complex conversations involve the opacity of insurance/hospital negotiations, insurance being tied to employment, medicare rate-setting, regulations that limit how many MDs can graduate and how many beds a hospital can add, the fact that pay-out-of-pocket options aren't standard, and on and on.]

Expand full comment
Harshi Peiris, Ph.D.'s avatar

An uncomfortable but real issue in medicine ... the creation of the “Very Important Patient” (VIP) whose status, wealth, or connections can subtly (or not so subtly) alter the way care is delivered. Thank you, Dr. Cifu, for putting this issue in clear terms. These are the conversations we need if we want to protect both patient care and the integrity of medicine.

Expand full comment
39 more comments...

No posts